If you remove from the equation progress in engine and chassis design, which bike is physically more pleasing to the eye?

And it's not just the CBRs.






I used to be able to tell the difference between sportbikes, but now ---- especially from a distance --- I often have no clue. They look almost identical and the paint schemes are dull and uninteresting.

There's been a change in geometry: there's a clear increase in the angle of the rider relative the street which probably shaves seconds on the track, but doesn't mean much for us civilians. I'm also not a big fan of the pointy front fairing and the disappearing tail.

Am I just getting old, or do the older bikes look better?

 

Hehehe. You're just getting old. That older Yamaha and Kawi are hideous.

On a flip note, the gsxr's get uglier every year

 

You're getting old. New ones look way better.

The Yamaha and Kawi look amazingly similar in body. Even down to the tail and headlight angles.

I really really really hate the way the new exhausts are starting to look though. Only one I like of the bunch is the Honda's undertail.

 

I'll agree, new ones look better.

I do, as nate mentioned, also hate the exhausts nowadays. The cans are just large unsightly bulbous objects that seem to have been designed in the 9th hour and thrown on there just to have one.

 

I just can't see it. The new bikes are all really just the same bike. The frame and what remains of the fairing are all the same. Like the new design better or not, you do have to give credit to the older paint schemes. They were each unique and far sportier.

One thing I always liked about the old Hurricanes and CBRs was how the fairing wrapped all the way up over the frame to the gas tank. It gives the bike a very sort of clean, smooth appearance. I think what strikes me most is how the full fairing is almost gone. It started to shrink around 2006 like the Arctic Ice Shelf and in a couple years it will be gone.

 

Hah, considering I own a Solid White and a Solid Black bike I dunno if I agree.

 

It's not cause I own an F2 - but out of all the older bikes pictured, I think the F2 has the best lines of the bunch.

I don't mind some of the newer bikes, not a big fan of the gixxers.

The F4i, Ninja 636, and the mid 2000's R6 were some of my favorite looking 600's, where the R1's of the mid 2K's, and CBR 954, and 2005ish ZX10 were my literbike of choice.

 

i love the 90s hondas F3 and F4 but some of the new ones are hot. like the 06 600rr. i just love the under tail pipes.

as for the colors and schemes, i think the older were much better. looked more sporty. as this should be a sport bike.

 

lookin at it with pictures they all followed the same trend. "pointy" front ends and loss of a tail.

im a fan of both actually. i like the "old school' because of there would be no "now' without it. then again the "now" looks sharp and just shows the technology improvements over the years just based off looks.

 

It's always been the case with UJM's (Universal Japanese Motorcycles). Even from the 60's it was all you could do to tell them apart.Every now & then though, they get in a different designer & if sells, then every bugger follows (as per the POC exhaust systems, but if you want to see something really ugly, check what Moto Guzzi has been churning out in the past few years). I don't know if their just lazy or bike designers all get together on Saturday nights & get p*ssed on Saki. The similarities can be said about a lot of European bikes to. Both tend to release "Concept bikes" & gauge the public's feed back. I guess these days it takes a brave company executive to put their jobs on the line for a model that may fail.
I've been around long enough to see some hideous bike designs (The Wankel 300 Rotary case in point) but then I thought the Honda Cub was woeful as well & they sold millions of them. Its funny looking back through bike mags & the ones you thought looked so sh*t hot 10-20 years ago . Same thing in another 10-20.